Share this:

After mulling and tinkering for the past 24 hours – and then doing a lot more math – I have the final version of the Section II Ratings Percentage Index. After griping and helping from others there are many different pieces that are taken into account for this RPI (as much and more than the collegiate systems actually).

The factors that are included: home field advantage, shutouts, second half rallies and margin of victory.

The following values are assigned to each factor (click the link below to see the spreadsheet – a screen grab isn’t going to work any more):

Weighted winning percentage (WP): Assigning a value to games played (see below) and taking the weighted wins/weighted games played.

Home Field Advantage

Home win: .9

Home loss: 1.1

Home tie: .45 (soccer only)

Away loss: .9

Away win: 1.1

Away tie: .55 (soccer only)

As we said before, home field advantage was overweighed in the first version of the RPI (75-25) and still overweighted in the second (57.5-42.5). Now home field is given a 55-45 edge.

Winning on the road is rewarded as much as losing at home is punished.

Shutouts

The ability to keep a team from scoring throughout a game has to be rewarded.

In order to reward that accomplishment, the ability to shutout an opponent has to quantified. Therefore, if a team has shutout another, the shutouter gets a 10% bonus that they will beat the shutoutees, in the weighted win percentage (see the example below if your brain just got fried and you are still setting up your fantasy roster).

The inverse is true as well for teams that are shutout. They must be punished in kind, but the addition of .2 to the value of a game does this.

Shutout bonus: +.2

Second half/Overtime rally

The ability of a team to comeback and win in the face of adversity (losing when the game is more than half over or the game has gone into an overtime scenario) has to be rewarded.

In order to reward that accomplishment, the ability to rally from behind or win when the game is on the line has to be quantified. Therefore, is a team has come from behind to beat another, the rallier gets a 5% bonus that they will beat the rallieied, in the weighted win percentage (see example below if your brain wants to escape back to simple addition and subtraction.)

The inverse of this is true as well for teams that are rallied upon or lose in overtime. They must be punished in kind for allowing the rally or loss in overtime to happen, but the addition of the .1 to the value of the game does this.

Second half rally/Overtime win bonus: +.1

Margin of victory

When a team is able to separate themselves from an opponent the margin by which they do so has to be rewarded.

In order to reward that accomplishment, the ability to win by more points has to be quantified. Therefore, winning by one score does not garner a bouns. The game could have swung either way, so winning by a single score (0-7 in football, 1 goal in soccer) is not rewarded.

It is known that eight points can be scored on a single football score, but a point after touchdown is easier (in theory) than a two point conversion.

Winning by two scores gives the winner a 5% advantage over the loser, winning by three a 10% advantage, winning by four scores a 15% advantage, and wining by five or more scores a 20% advantage. Capping the advantage at 20% does not reward running up the score as a 10-score win is rewarded the same amount as a 5-score win.

(This means that if these teams played 100 times, it is about an 80-20 prospect that Amsterdam would win. This is the most extreme example for both a win and a loss).

Overall, I think that an 80-20 most extreme edge is accurate and reflective of two things, first of all, that one team is superior and will win a significantly greater percentage of the time. Second, the human factor of high school football remains intact. Could Amsterdam beat South High closer to 90 or maybe even 95 percent of the time? Probably, but there are so many other variables that are not being taken into account (injury, weather, officiating, play selection, fan support, etc.) that an 80-20 edge allows for these to be incorporated at a later time if desired.

Opponents’ Winning Percentage (OWP) - Assigning a value to games played by opponents (not against the team in question) and taking the weighted wins/weighted games played.

Once you figure out all of the weighted games (and therefore team weighted win percentages), you can figure out the Opponents weighted win percentage for each team. This is calculated by taking the weighted wins of the opponents and dividing that by the weighted games played (taking out the games of the team in question played against the competition – so a team can’t hurt its own opponent win percentage by winning games – is done now).

Opponents’ Opponents Winning Percentage (OOWP) – Averaging the OWP of all of the opponents that a team plays.

With all of that explanation, here is how things work out for our different settings:

(Remember that this is simply a tool that is used for the Power Rankings. This does NOT represent where we rank each team, it simply represents where the weighted statistics incorporating home/away, shutouts, rallies, and margin of victory, rank the teams.)

Here is the deal Shenendehowa (your shutouts count now). Things basically come down to the fact that CBA (who does have a late rally to their credit) beat LaSalle – 3-2 – on the road and you beat Shaker – 2-3 – at home. That is the difference right now.

Class A only

1. Troy – .6055

2. Burnt Hills – .5543

3. Amsterdam -.5534

4. Lansingburgh – .5235

5. Queensbury – .4874

6. Glens Falls – .4856

7. Bishop Magin – .4798

8. Mohonasen – .4772

9. Scotia – .4488

10. Averill Park – .4459

11. South Glens Falls – .3899

12. Green Tech – .3833

13. Gloversville – .3819

I know you are going to be bent out of shape again Amsterdam, but the non-division schedule is what hurts you. Here is the difference between the Rams and the Spartans: Amsterdam’s non-division opponents are Scotia and Colonie (at home), while Burnt Hills’ are Shaker and Schenectady (at home). That is the swing. You want to argue, but opponents you play can affect the rating as head-to-head games are eliminated from calculation now.

What this shows is that the Empire Division in Class AA is the best one since they all beat on each other.

Easiest

1. Amsterdam – .4041

2. Niskayuna – .4178

3. Gloversville – .4281

4. Bishop Maginn – .4317

5. Lansingburgh – .4329

The Southeast Division of Class A is relatively weak. Amsterdam had its toughest games of the year (Queensbury, Burnt Hills, Glens Falls) at home and road games at South Glens Falls, Gloversville, and Scotia.

Class AA only

1. Bethlehem – .5759

2. CBA – .5632

3. Shaker – .5499

4. Shenendehowa – .5429

5. Ballston Spa – .5406

6. Saratoga Springs – .5343

7. LaSalle – .5203

8. Schenectady – .5200

9. Albany – .5163

10. Columbia – .4989

11. Guilderland – .4978

12. Colonie – .4946

13. Niskayuna – .4178

The Eagles have had the toughest go as they get Shen and CBA on the road and then their crossover is against Liberty leading Columbia.

Class A only

1. Averill Park – .5302

2. Scotia – .5274

3. Glens Falls – .5229

4. South Glens Falls – .5203

5. Green Tech – .5114

6. Troy – .4740

7. Burnt Hills – .4668

8. Mohonasen – .4521

9. Queensbury – .4475

10. Lansingburgh – .4329

11. Bishop Maginn – .4317

12. Gloversville – .4281

13. Amsterdam – .4041

Tough go of it for Green Tech this season in their first year as a varsity team with Queensbury as the non-league team to go with the rough division including Troy. Scotia gets Amsterdam in its non-division game. Averill Park’s schedule includes, Troy, Maginn, Columbia, Burgh, and Mohonasen.

The base case was Section II Class AA and A football again since there are cross over games between the two classes and the entire season is played within section.

This will be updated on a weekly basis and released on Sundays.

Soccer is being processed now and hopefully will be released tonight or tomorrow morning.

Share this:

34 Comments

Ben, what you might want to do to help prove the validity of your system, etc, is to apply it to last seasons games where you already know the outcomes and see how accurate it. You obviously put alot of time and effort into this and as fans we can all appreciate and thank you for that.

I will start doing that. Now that I have the formulas and weights set the way I (and most people) like them, we can start doing this for everything. It took a few tries to get the starting point right, but now that it is the sky is the limit.

Ben, just want to say, kudos to you for all the work and effort you put into this…..as most of us fans of Section 2 are always interested in what all staff at the TU say, speaking for other fans, I think I can say we genuinely appreciate all that is done for this area regarding HS sports…

-I have both Shen and Troy about 10 points better than CBA. Again we won’t know until they play this week if that is correct.

-I have both Amsterdam and Burnt Hills about 2 touchdowns better than Columbia. You have Columbia rated above both.

-I have Guilderland and Shaker in my top ten. You have Bethlehem and Lansingburgh in their place. We have 8 of 10 similar just not in the same order.

The only thing that really doesn’t make any sense to me looking through the top ten ratings for each class is having Green Tech rated higher than anybody. Using your top 10 A rankings. Green Tech as an average negative point differential of –29.2 against opponents rated: # 8, #10, #5, #9, and #4.

Gloversville rated below Green Tech has a negative point differential of –10.8. However, according to your overall rankings have played teams rated #2, #6, # 11, # 5 and # 3.

Gloversville has played the better schedule and has less of a point differential. If you say it out loud it just doesn’t make sense to me. Plus you have South Glens Falls above them as well and Gloversville beat them by 36 points. A touchdown margin is one thing when comparing teams, 36 points is significantly better in my opinion.

There is a tweak needed somewhere as Gloversville is anywhere from 3-4 touchdowns better than Tech and South Glens Falls when looking at strength of schedule and point differential.

I know you don’t use exactly the same factors but I would double check why Green Tech would even be close to any team in Class A and why South Glens Falls is ahead of Gloversville. Tech would have a hard time beating C and D teams. I wouldn’t say the same for Gloversville.

Your strength of schedule component doesn’t make sense if you have Green Tech with a tougher Schedule than Gloversville.

Green Tech only plays two teams this year with under .500 records (Scotia, AP who is 2-3) so that bumps up their opponents’ win % and SOS for me.

Gloversville is hurt by its non-league schedule because they get no-win Albany as one of their road games. They also get Mohon who is near .500 (3-2). If either of those teams win then G’ville will move up.

South Glens Falls, though winless, is really helped by their schedule. Outside of the division (in which they get Burnt Hills, Amsterdam and Queensbury) they get Maginn (3-2) and Lansingburgh (4-1) plus the head to head game against G’ville isn’t counted when it comes to opponents winning percentage for either team. That pushes them up.

I actually kind of like making these comparisons though.

If all we are off on is Guilderland and Shaker vs. Lansingburgh and Bethlehem than I think we are doing quite well.

All we need now is to find our pocket protectors and abacuses (abacusi?)

Using your rankings Gloversville has played the tougher schedule. List the 5 teams that each have played and ask anyone which schedule is more difficult.

Take your math out of it. The key to any ranking system that is accurate is getting your numbers/formula to coincide with actual results on the field and passing the “eyeball” test. Meaning your numbers will show the true strength of a team or darn close.

I just can’t past the fact that you have a winless team, Green Tech, that’s getting beat by almost 30 points a game, and South Glens Falls who lost by 36 to Gloversville ranked ahead of Gloversville.

Until you fix that error your rankings can’t be considered accurate or relevant on any level if your using the same formula that generated those results for all teams.

Gloversville is 3 to 4 touchdowns better than both Green Tech and already beat South Glens Falls on the field by 5 touchdowns.

This isn’t an accurate reflection of these teams, not even close. While I respect your attempt, your “formula” is not accurate if a team that loses by 36 points is still ranked higher than the team that beat them.

My system takes the total season into account already. Perhaps that is where our descrepency is. (See my note on schedules from before).

The fact of the matter is that both SGF and Green Tech has a tougher road than G’ville and the head-to-head game(s) is eliminated from my numbers. If your system is different then that is fine, but in mine that makes a big difference.

In my opinion, if the eyeball test and the numbers agree everytime then what is the point of doing the numbers? I think the key to a statistical ranking system is to not coincide with the eyball test.

I have CBA ahead of Shen, but do I think the Plainsmen deserve the edge? Yes, but weighting all of the games as I do and taking the entire season into account, puts CBA ahead for now.

I think my formula is accurate for the way I have it set up. I think your formula is right for the way you have it set up. I think they are both tools in the overall ranking process, but neither way is the absolute best as both have flaws (as the eyeball test does as well).

The way it sits right now we could almost do a Section II football BCS…whoops, another idea.

Your system has a team that lost to another team by 36 points, on the field, ranked ahead of the team they lost to. You are still trying to justify that based on some strength of schedule component that clearly isn’t accurate.

That is beyond comprehension to me, plus it’s not accurate. I’ve tried the best I could to offer suggestions but you seem to have it all figured out.

One last thing, how could you build a ranking system using games on a team’s schedule they haven’t played yet? Upcoming games don’t show the true strength of a team, games they’ve already played show that.

You are never going to provide accurate statistical analysis of these teams judging them on games they haven’t played yet. Once again that doesn’t make any sense. Ask anyone who follows the local football scene about the order you have these teams ranked in and I’d be highly surprised if they agree with you. Good luck going forward but I think you need to another tweak or tweaks to your rankings.

Do I think that Gloversville is getting a raw deal? Well, yeah sort of, but here are a couple of things from how the college system works that explain my point of view.

From CollegeRPI.com:

“Why did my team move up after a loss (or down after a win)? Why did my team move up (or down) when they didn’t play?

There could be several reasons. One is that since the RPI measures strength of schedule, so it is possible to have a higher RPI after playing a good team, win or lose. Also, a team could have its RPI move down by playing a bad team, win or lose. A team’s RPI can also change when they don’t even play if one of the teams on their schedule played.

Another thing is that rankings are relative, meaning that a team’s ranking is affected by the results of teams around them in the rankings. A team could move in the rankings without even playing if the teams around them played. This is the way computer models can work and is often the most confusing difference for people used to following polls.”

Also to your point (again from CollegeRPI.com):

“Why is my team ranked behind this other team when we beat them?

The RPI is a measurement of strength of schedule and how you did against that schedule. The ENTIRE schedule. To look at only one game ignores the “any given day” aspect of sports. In 1998-99, for example, Iowa lost to Creighton, who lost to Drake, who lost to Evansville, who lost to East Carolina, who lost to James Madison, who lost to Maryland-Eastern Shore, who lost to Delaware St, who lost to New Hampshire, who lost to Yale. No one in their right mind would have rated Iowa behind any of those teams, let alone all of them.”

So, do I think Gloversville should be ranked higher? Yes.

Do the numbers happen to disagree with me? Yes.

Are these numbers – or “ratings” – going to match when we are “ranking” teams? No.

We use them as a tool to help guide us. Just as you use yours to help guide you.

These are differnt tools along the way.

Here is my proposal, if you send me your rankings, I have James’ rankings, and we can use my ratings we can make a Section II BCS. Rate all of the teams and the get an inverse number from their ranking spot (No. 1 = 13 points, No. 2 = 12 points, No. 3 = 11 points, etc.)

“The RPI is a measurement of strength of schedule and how you did against that schedule. The ENTIRE schedule.”

Correct, you’ve made my argument for me. (How you did, not how you may do against it) The teams you’ve played on that schedule are responsible for the s.o.s number, not the teams you HAVEN’T PLAYED YET.

Also these numbers or “ratings” will match or be very close if they are accurate, that’s the point.

I can’t read anymore as my head will explode if you try to justify 1 more time that a team that won by 36 on the field over another team is ranked below them. Plus Green Tech who has a worse schedule, NO WINS and a minus 29+ ppg margin is ranked above Gloversville as well.

Times Union writer James Allen ranks teams based on his eyesight, my rankings are very similar using statistics. We both have a very good track record of predicting who will win games and the strength of teams.

Both different ways of doing it, but both accurate and “similar” in results.

My interpretation of the entire schedule is that all seven or nine games are taken into account at all times.

You are neither helped nor hurt by a weighted game that you have not played yet.

It is calculated by a 0/0 right now.

I believe that my system is accurate throughout. If you do not believe so then that is your own right.

Both of you have an excellent track record, but there have been dicrepencies otherwise everything would go in predicted order everytime (ie: Burnt Hills at Amsterdam – according to many rankings/ratings including my own.)

Just because my numbers are different does not mean that my numbers are innaccurate. For how I value games (which I stipulated above) I am accurate.

Think of it like pizza toppings. If I like ham and mushroom and you like pineapple and bacon are either of us wrong? Of course not, but I might hate how you do your pizza and you might hate how I do mine, but we like what we like.

If people like how you weight games (SOS and Margin heavily…I hope I am recalling that correctly) then they can follow yours. If they like the eyeball test/experience they can follow James. If they like my parameters they can follow me.

I think it would be interesting to combine all three and see what shakes out.

The upcoming results on the field will determine accuracy of each rankings system. Until you list your full section 2 rankings (all classes) and compare them over the course of each week, you are just blindly making up numbers.

My suggestion to you is rank every team in section 2. You can keep them together by class or all together, it doesn’t matter. Then keep track of each game played and make sure YOUR higher ranked team is beating your lower ranked team 70-80% of the time.

That is the only true way to measure your rankings. If your rankings aren’t proving each week that the higher rated teams are beating the lower rated teams, then you’ll need to adjust your system.

It’s easy to see with my predictions as I list them on multiple platforms every week and James Allen does as well.

You have to figure out a way to justify your rankings with wins and losses or they are useless in my opinion.

Ben, I’m not saying my way of doing this is better, but it has proven its accuracy over the course of the last year and a half. A 269-57 (82.5%) for all section 2 vs section 2 football games. The higher rated team beating the lower rated team.

James has a good track record as well, but he’s not predicting anymore games correct than that over the course of the season.

I’m comfortable saying that my numbers can be as successful predicting or analyzing the strength of teams without ever watching a high school football game in section 2. I also think someone who knows the sport like James Allen does, can provide insight that I can’t from judging teams on just raw data.

You need to establish a track record as you said. That will give 3 differing opinions/statistics on the same set of teams, looking at them totally different.

Ideally no one system should be rated or thought of at a higher percentage if we are all within percentage points of projecting winners.

Each would be valued equally. Interesting idea, I’d be highly surprised if it ever saw the light of day however.

I know you refuse to take my word for it, but here’s a guy who’s been doing rankings longer than I have.

Look at Green Tech and Gloversville.

You continue to tell me how your method proves Green Tech has a tougher schedule than Gloversville and you have them ranked higher overall as well.

According to CalPreps, who’ve been doing this type of thing for more than the last week, they have Gloversville’s strength of schedule considerably higher than Green Tech. Their overall ranking is about 30 points higher as well. No way on this green earth on any ranking system should Green Tech be ahead of Gloversville based on this years results, schedule or anything.

The same facts I’ve listed in this blog post.

If you are using that strength of schedule calculation for ALL of your teams you won’t produce anything close to accurate results. I’ve tried to relay that to you time and again.

I’m almost beginning to think you are putting me on as there is no way possible that you can continue to argue the fact that Green Tech has had a tougher schedule or should be ranked higher as you have them.

Ned from Cal Preps and myself have been doing this for a long time with very accurate results. We both do it differently but have the teams ranked similar and have the higher rated team beating the lower rated team at a high pct. You’ve been doing this for 3 days and you continue to justify your formula when it’s clearly not accurate.

This experiment you’ve done, while noble, defies common sense and accuracy. Something a statistical ranking system should agree with, not ignore.

I understand that my system does not have the resume that both yours and Ned’s have. It has yet to be proven. (This seems to be a large sticking point). Mine is a new idea that needs more testing and support…I get it…it is coming (I can’t fast forward time) and with soccer.

I chose to weight things in the manner I do and you (and Ned, I see) disagree. I take the entire season into account from end to end. That is how I do things.

When it comes to it at the end of the day, people (and rating systems) should disagree because they people (and rating systems) see and weight things differently. The perspectives are different and the ratings/rankings should be different. When you want to match all of the time, then what is the point? I think we are in the ball park when it comes to both of our rankings (CBA-Shen-Troy at the top and Green Tech-Gloversville-South Glens Falls at the bottom) and that shows that we are both relatively accurate. We might differ on the specifics, but that is OK. If I had Glens Falls in the top 5 or something than I would totally be on board with you, but for the most part we are similar but differ slightly…just like how real polls/rankings/ratings work.

I get it that you disagree with me. That is fine. I think that when a person wants to see the full picture of Section II football they need to take all perspectives into account (mine, yours’, James’ etc.) and make the decision for themselves.

I think that Green Tech’s schedule is tougher (when weighted in the way I have said and when looked at as a whole) then Gloversville. Playing at Albany is a lot easier (for G’ville) than playing at Troy (for Green Tech). Playing at Queensbury (for Green Tech) is harder than playing Queensbury at home (for G’ville). Those kind of things factor in to my numbers. The head-to-head win by G’ville is taken out of SGF’s weighted win percentage as same as the vice versa so a team can’t hurt their own opponents’ win percentage.

If you don’t agree with how I weight it or take things into account than that is fine. But generally speaking, I use a formula very similar to the college RPI.

I don’t agree with James’ eye for some teams just as the numbers sometimes don’t always line up. He has his criteria…I have mine…you have yours.

I need to prove myself for sure and follow through with how I weight things (I have already changed twice as you have seen), so I am flexible, but give me a chance. You seem to be throwing my numbers away because we differ on the order of the teams that we both have in the bottom three. That doesn’t seem fair.

I think that my system needs time to be proved for sure, but let us not say it is “defies common sense or accuracy.” A team with a tougher overall schedule that loses to a team with an easier one just means different things to both of us.

Remember the pizza idea? Your pepperoni ratings are different than my ham ratings, but they are both still pizza. We have generally the same things, but the orders are different.

To each his own…

(I feel like I am defending a dissertation here. I am just offering a new way to look at things in a landscape where there are many proven ways of doing so.)

You have Shen as about 11 points (two scores) better than CBA on raw numbers.

I would put them at about 7 points (one score) better using my numbers as a guide and my eyes to do the rest.

Do we disagree? Yes.

Are we off by much? Of course not.

And in the college system (via RealTimeRPI.com): Presbyterian (FCS – Div. I AA) is 0-3 and ranked No. 228 overall and ahead of 5 FCS teams with one win. Flordia Atlantic (BCS – Div I A) is 0-4 and ranked No. 136 and ahead of 3 BCS teams with a win.

You have CBA ranked as the #1 team higher then Shen, how you can you have Shen 7 points better. What are you talking about? Are you now changing your rankings? Which is it?

I get it, your list shows CBA #1 but we are to assume Shen is 7 points better? What????? #1 usually means better, last time I checked. This is ridiculous.

Also this statement is not even close:

“I think we are in the ball park when it comes to both of our rankings (CBA-Shen-Troy at the top and Green Tech-Gloversville-South Glens Falls at the bottom) and that shows that we are both relatively accurate”.

We are not even on the same planet, let alone ball park.

South Glens falls lost by 36 points and are ranked higher than Gloversville. SAY IT OUT LOUD.

Listen, good luck. I’ve given as much helpful advice and constructive criticism as I can give. I’m now at the point of no return. Your formula is not accurate. Prior games prove that and future games will prove that.

Again, nice attempt, but if you are striving for accuracy, you need to change your formula.

Nice job adding extra coverage for the Times Union on HS Sports,I mean that. However I’d rather read about a game you covered then you wasting your time telling us about a ranking system that isn’t accurate based on results on the field. Just because you think your formula makes sense. I like reading about kids that don’t usually get covered, I dislike reading about something that is being passed off as accurate when it’s not.

Last 2 arguments and I’m done. Your quote:

“And in the college system (via RealTimeRPI.com): Presbyterian (FCS – Div. I AA) is 0-3 and ranked No. 228 overall and ahead of 5 FCS teams with one win. Flordia Atlantic (BCS – Div I A) is 0-4 and ranked No. 136 and ahead of 3 BCS teams with a win.”

Did any of those teams lose by 36 to the team they are ranked higher than? NOPE

Also how can you give added points for a second half comeback, won’t that effect teams that have big leads and take their starters out?

Hoosick Falls haven’t given up a point in the first half this season. (No added points). If they give up a meaningless touchdown with the third string in, (No added points for shutout).

I appreciate the wish of luck. Your system has proven its worth I hope mine does as well.

I have read every word that you have sent me.

I don’t think that you have read all of my words.

First, I have said since the beginning that my system is a tool and not the complete picture of how I see Section II football teams ranking completely. This new way of looking at things is a guide. I do not feel that any stats only system truly takes 15-17 year old kids into complete consideration. The human element is too great. Thankfully, the games are played out on the field.

You talk about accuracy. You seem to want a laser pointer’s accuracy (82% is very good over the last two years, but even your system isn’t 100%, 90% or even 85% accurate). I don’t believe this a laser’s accuracy is possible in high school sports (no matter how you spin it) as I have said in other posts and explained throughout my post. I think instead of pointing with a laser that it is only possible to point with a finger. There is a difference of how we feel on this point. A fundamental difference that I don’t believe we will ever see eye to eye on.

Second, if you read my other comment I have Shen favored in my mind because I use both my numbers AND my eyes (like a true ranker should be…I am not chained to a computer screen at all times.). I took the time to read your comments thoroughly, I would appreciate it if you took the time to completely read mine.

Finally, I give points for a second half comeback only if a team completes the rally and wins the game (to me this shows courage/guts/moxie whatever you want to call it and should be rewarded). Again, you have not completely read my system and are now making assumptions. Also, in terms of a shutout, a team cannot lose if the opponent can’t score (as I have said before if you read closely enough) therefore if Team A scores 0 points than Team B cannot lose. This should be given value in my opinion.

I have faith in my numbers. You have faith in yours. I appreciate your position, but it seems to me as if you have your mind made up, that mine are not worthy yet.

I am also pleased that you believe this matter to be done because I do not wish to speak with you about it any further. I believe I have explained how I approach things with examples. You question the accuracy of my work and that is fair, because it has yet to play itself out – just as your system was when it was first created, but I have explained why I have things ranked as I do and the reasons why some numbers (that seem illogical) mean what they do.

Thank you for reading about players that might not get the coverage that they once did and always have deserved. That is our goal at all times. However, Sidelines is also a forum on which opinions are expressed and not just simply news reported. I made the point in the headline that this was a new way to look at Section II football (and eventually soccer). If you disagree with me then you do not have to read them or you can make a claim of your own as you have done with your predictions. The power rankings that both I and James produce are reacted to by all kinds of readers.

I consider this matter closed and leave it to the fans to decide who they wish to follow (your record speaks for itself, mine is yet to be determined in your eyes).

“Second, if you read my other comment I have Shen favored in my mind because I use both my numbers AND my eyes (like a true ranker should be…I am not chained to a computer screen at all times.). I took the time to read your comments thoroughly, I would appreciate it if you took the time to completely read mine. ”

So let me get this straight. You list CBA #1 in your rankings overall. I’m reading that correctly right…Ok 4 days later, you’ve unveiled your new “mind rankings” that has Shen 7 points better than your New Final way to look at Section 2 Football.

Do you see where that could be confusing for anyone who looked at CBA as your #1 team for the last 4 days? Now you have Shen as the better team.

I’d have a ton more respect if you did 2 things.

#1. Say, Ed, I have CBA rated as the best team in Section 2 and we’ll let the games play it out. Not 4 days later say Shen is better.

#2. Admit you are beyond wrong having a team that lost by 36 points ranked ahead of the team that beat them. After I pointed out your mistake.

If you had said either one of those things you gain instant credibility in my book.

However you go this route.

#1 I have CBA #1 on my New way to look at Section 2 football rankings, but in my mind rankings for no one else to see until 4 days later. I have Shen better by a touchdown.

#2 Your math comprehension may not be good as you’d like us to believe if you have Green Tech rated ahead of anyone in Class A. Or maybe it’s as bad as my alleged reading problem.

Credibility gone, when all you had to do is say, Hey I think CBA is #1 just like my rankings say. (That I’ve spent all this time on) . I gain instant respect. Si

Or hey Ed you and the rest of the free world are correct Green Tech should not be rated higher than Gloversville.

I actually have another job (as a High School English teacher) and have been busy working. Between covering soccer (both boys and girls), helping with football, doing video highlights, preparing for Play-by-Play calls of football games, corrrecting papers, creating assignments, running live chats, speaking with parents about students, speaking with parents about soccer players, and driving places, and teaching classes I don’t not have the time or the ability to approve every comment as it comes in.

Secondly, despite your responses, I have taken the time to go back and look at my numbers to see if I had made a typing mistake when you pointed things out (I don’t believe that my system is inaccurate from a philisopical standpoint, but I thought I might have made a typographical error and it only be fair that I double check my work – again). I thought that it was only fair that I reevaluate myself before moving forward. I re-did everything. I reweighted games. I rewrote my spreadsheet. I did everything from the raw ingredients on up.

I found an error.

If you had patience, then you would have given me the oppurtunity to say that I found a arithmatic error on my spread sheet. I still have SGF (at .3905) over Gloversville (.3820) due almost entirely to the difference in their schedules. I will stand by that ranking along with having CBA ahead of Shenendehowa in numbers (we have already discussed how a true ranker/predictor is not based totally on numbers and why I think that Shen has an edge tomorrow night).

My error occured on Green Tech where I had a box adding an incorrect number into my system (as I am sure you have encountered…having a wrong box checked can be both hard to find and have very large reporcussions). Regretable yes, and to the chagrin of myself in front of all the people in the free world/on the green Earth, but a simple computation error. There is a reason why pencils have erasers and computers have backspace buttons.

Green Tech now has the lowest RPI in my calculation with a .3648. You were right in this case and I was wrong based on a clerical error. I am sure there have been similar errors made by yourself along with all football fans in the past.

If given the chance today I was going to discuss this either here or in another post and make reference to it in the new set of RPIs that I will produce.

Thank you for reading and the help with this.

If we differ on our interpretations of Section II football that is the way of life. If my statements in the past were taken as insults then my apologies. I simply wanted to point out that it didn’t seem like you read my statements completley. (Sometimes disscussions in this forum can lose tone/meaning when read from different persepctives.)

I once again leave it up to the fans to decide which system they wish to follow (even though I yield to James Allen’s eye in this matter).

So you stand by your rankings that South Glens Falls is the better team even though Gloversville beat them by 36 on the road. That is if your ranking system means the higher overall number is the better team. Which I think it is.

A road win by 36 points isn’t enough to push Gloversville to higher rating in your system. Ok…. I know you that you insist road wins are tough. So that must be one heck of a strength of schedule South Glens Falls has played to make up 36 points of margin of victory.

You also “still have” CBA ranked higher than Shen, but pick Shen to win.

Now Ben, if you don’t trust that your rankings show the true strength of a team, how can anyone take these seriously?

I have Shen better than CBA, James Allen has Shen better than CBA, Cal Preps has Shen better than CBA and we all pick Shen. You have CBA better and don’t agree with your own rankings. See my problem.

I’m not saying your wrong with CBA, but you don’t believe in your own system, why should I or anyone else? How don’t you get that?

If you don’t think your rankings show true strength of a team, why should we? You are contradicting a ranking system that you’ve created.

Maybe I’m also missing something, but you keep implying that you are a “true ranker” because you are using rankings and your “mind”. What exactly is that? Maybe I’m doing something wrong. I’ve never heard of that before or maybe I’m still a step below “true ranker” status. I’ll strive to be a true ranker I guess.

But to me it sounds like the cover your backside excuse. My ranking show CBA but my Pick is Shen because everyone else that knows football is picking Shen. Then you win either way.

Bottom line, it should take 5 seconds to know Green Tech should be the lowest rated, not 5 days. The clerical error excuse is a good one though.

Ok. Next week let me know when you release the “mind” rankings so I can see which teams you are projecting to win the games. It looks like this set of Section 2 football rankings are not who you really think is the stronger team, because it still says #1 CBA, but you still are picking a team to beat them that are below them IN YOUR RANKINGS

“Now Ben, if you don’t trust that your rankings show the true strength of a team, how can anyone take these seriously? I have Shen better than CBA, James Allen has Shen better than CBA, Cal Preps has Shen better than CBA and we all pick Shen. You have CBA better and don’t agree with your own rankings. See my problem. I’m not saying your wrong with CBA, but you don’t believe in your own system, why should I or anyone else? How don’t you get that? If you don’t think your rankings show true strength of a team, why should we? You are contradicting a ranking system that you’ve created.”

I have to concede this point. You are correct in how my picking Shen – against my own rankings – does make it seem as if even I do not have faith in my own numbers. You have articulated this argument well and I thank you for that. Tonight’s game is a test.

I have said that taking everything into account and not my system alone has me on the Shenendehowa side, but my number on their own have CBA a little bit in front. If this seems as a convenient way to chose both than you can – and have – point that out. The result of tonight’s game is one that will be a test for me I guess. Should I go by just the numbers or should I go by looking at everything? We will find out in a few hours. I was not planning on gloating in either direction, but instead using the game as a litmus test to see which system works better.

I do not make predictions/projections on games, unless I am asked, I only rank teams and this new system is the tool that I use to do so. The accuracy of this system is for debate, as we have had, just like with any ranking system or person.

I believe that your rankings/predictions are very good as your results show. This is something that I have said from the beginning of our conversation.

I think this statement, “everyone else that knows football,” is insulting. I will move on from it.

If the truth is a “good one” then I hope to always use good ones. I apologize for the time it took to discover the error.